State v. Ainsworth
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an information filed by the state’s attorney, at the March term of the county court, 1888, charging the defendant, in eleven counts, with having sold, to eleven different 'persons, rum, brandy, gin and wine, by small measure, that is, by the half pint, gill and half gill. The defendant pleaded not guilty — issue to the country.
Read the full summary
This was an information filed by the state’s attorney, at the March term of the county court, 1888, charging the defendant, in eleven counts, with having sold, to eleven different 'persons, rum, brandy, gin and wine, by small measure, that is, by the half pint, gill and half gill. The defendant pleaded not guilty — issue to the country. On the trial the prosecutor offered, under the first count, to prove the offence to have been committed in February, A.D. 1837, to which the defendant objected, on the ground that the offence was barred by the statute of limitations, and the defendant also…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Collamer, J.
There is no ground for saying that this of-fence was within the statute of limitations, and that is abandoned by the respondent’s council. By our statute, the selling of spirituous liquors by small measure without license is penal, and, by express statute, each act of selling is a distinct of-fence, and incurs a distinct penalty. Stat. of 1830, sect. 2. It follows, as a necessary consequence, that, for each act of selling, the offender may be prosecuted by a separate indictment or information, or by different counts in the same, as may be…
2Cited by11 opinions
- State v. McDonaldOregon Supreme Court · 1961
- State v. HoweOregon Supreme Court · 1895
- State v. HealySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
- State v. O'BrienSupreme Court of Vermont · 1934
- State v. PianfettiSupreme Court of Vermont · 1906
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.